Is Desecration of the eucharist a problem?

[CallistusPM]

Redemptionis Sacramentum
Chapter IV, Paragraph 92

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

8July: St. Elizabeth of Portugal, W

Interesting you should post this BUT FYI, there are priests who refuse to administer communion on the tongue. They will also refuse you if you kneel to receive. Granted, many/most would not prohibit this but there are some who do. CallistusPM

 

[choy]

8July: St. Elizabeth of Portugal, W

Interesting you should post this BUT FYI, there are priests who refuse to administer communion on the tongue. They will also refuse you if you kneel to receive. Granted, many/most would not prohibit this but there are some who do. CallistusPM

then thats their issue. they are breaking the law of the Church. but its also wrong to say CITH was never allowed by the Church. clearly it has

 

[ProVobis]

8July: St. Elizabeth of Portugal, W

Interesting you should post this BUT FYI, there are priests who refuse to administer communion on the tongue. They will also refuse you if you kneel to receive. Granted, many/most would not prohibit this but there are some who do. CallistusPM

If they refuse to administer COTT, then they don’t have permission to administer CITH. ERGO IT BECOMES A SACRILEGE!!!

This was the first condition of the CITH. It’s right there in black and white.

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

 

[MarkThompson]

If they refuse to administer COTT, then they don’t have permission to administer CITH. ERGO IT BECOMES A SACRILEGE!!!

A liturgical abuse, maybe; but sacrilege? Think again.

You’re a funny guy PV, maybe the ridiculous capitals and triple exclamation point should tip me off that you’re being ironic? If that’s the case, then in the future make sure you put some 1s in for added clarity.

 

[ProVobis]

A liturgical abuse, maybe; but sacrilege? Think again.

You’re a funny guy PV

Why funny? It was a sacrilege before it was “allowed” wasn’t it? So, unless Divine Law has changed and if CITH is not allowed…

How do you arrive at a simple abuse case out of that?

(Show your work. )

PS. For extra credit, show how a liturgical abuse cannot also be a sacrilege, or any violation of the First Commandment, for that matter.

 

[VetA]

Sedes Sapientiae

The Vatican has never approved of communion in the hand. John Paul II never approved nor has Benedict. This is all another example of liberal bishops extending a so called hand to the Protestant community. Until the pope puts on the tiara again and takes control of this church, many abuses will continue under modernism and liberal ordinaries.

i believe the US in particular has an indult (i believe is the term) to do it which (i would believe) would require papal approval. regardless i do not think il papa has to wear a tiara to take command of the church and root out the liberal priests and bishops…

 

[MarkThompson]

Why funny? It was a sacrilege before it was “allowed” wasn’t it? So, unless Divine Law has changed and if CITH is not allowed…

How do you arrive at a simple abuse case out of that?

(Show your work. )

PS. For extra credit, show how a liturgical abuse cannot also be a sacrilege, or any violation of the First Commandment, for that matter.

Distributing communion in the hand does not become sacrilegious if you refuse to distribute it on the tongue. Sacrilege is an act of grace disrespect toward the Eucharist; it doesn’t result legalistically from failure to adhere to an obliquely related regulation.

 

[Moscati]

If they refuse to administer COTT, then they don’t have permission to administer CITH. ERGO IT BECOMES A SACRILEGE!!!

This was the first condition of the CITH. It’s right there in black and white.

Umm . . . I think a priest de facto has the right administer Communion unless the permission is expressly taken away, yes? He’s have to be stripped of his faculties as a priest? That’s not automatic.

If a priest refused to administer COTT, he would be disobedient, and should be rebuked, but I don’t think it would mean he’d suddenly no longer have permission to administer CITH.

I guess I’m just confused.

Sacrilege is “the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object”, right? A priest who refuses to administer COTT is violating the rights of and injuring his parishioners (as laid out in RS), but he’s not violating the sacred Host itself, per se.

 

[CallistusPM]

i believe the US in particular has an indult (i believe is the term) to do it which (i would believe) would require papal approval. regardless i do not think il papa has to wear a tiara to take command of the church and root out the liberal priests and bishops…

9July: St.Thomas More,M; St.Veronica Giuliani, V

In matters where the pope has called for reform such as in Holy Mass, the bishops continue to defy him and reject orthodoxy. For example, the pontiff wishes all bishops provide kneelers for receiving communion and communion on the tongue. THIS IS STILL THE UNIVERSAL NORM BUT HAS BEEN REJECTED SINCE VATICAN II BY BISHOPS. Other reforms suggested by Benedict such as greater use of the Tridentine Rite, saying Mass ad orientem, and a more unified policy on receiving communion by Catholic politicians who publically support abortion, homosexuality, etc. have been rejected and fallen on deaf ears. The bishops only pay lip service to the pope but their hearts are far from him. Seminary reform regarding sexual abusive priests has only recently been undertaken, not because the pope supports it, but because of the threat of legal prosecution hanging over the bishops’ heads. (see THE REMNANT, 31May2010.)
I only suggested the pope wearing the tiara (triregnum) because it symbolizes the temporal and spiritual power of the pontiff. Order must be restored in the church and the pope must, once again, be the one who assumes this authority. CallistusPM

 

[ProVobis]

Sacrilege is “the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object”, right? A priest who refuses to administer COTT is violating the rights of and injuring his parishioners (as laid out in RS), but he’s not violating the sacred Host itself, per se.

As I spelled out, it’s one of the conditions for approval. And it’s not the only condition for approval. But refusal to administer COTT is a clear violation of the CITH “approval” and thus becomes a violation of the sacred Host as a whole as well by default. I didn’t write Divine Law or the Vatican conditions to make the practice non-sacrilegeous so I can’t agree with such “per se” rationalizations.

 

[ProVobis]

Sacrilege is “the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object”, right? A priest who refuses to administer COTT is violating the rights of and injuring his parishioners (as laid out in RS), but he’s not violating the sacred Host itself, per se.

As I spelled out, it’s one of the conditions for approval. Refusal to administer COTT is a clear violation of the CITH “approval” and thus becomes a violation of the sacred Host as a whole as well by default. I didn’t write Divine Law or the Vatican conditions to try to make the practice non-sacrilegeous so I can’t agree with such “per se” rationalizations.